Timothy Jeroge Johnson v. D. Asuncion

Filing 14

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Stevenson.Petitioner is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE on or before April 12, 2018 why the action should not be dismissed. (See order for details) (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Dismissal Form) (hr)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No.
Title

CV 17-6567-MWF (KS)

Date: March 13, 2018

Timothy Jeroge Johnson v. D. Asuncion

Present: The Honorable:

Karen L. Stevenson, United States Magistrate Judge

Roxanne Horan-Walker
Deputy Clerk

N/A
Court Reporter / Recorder

Attorneys Present for Petitioners:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL

On December 4, 2017, Petitioner, a California state prisoner proceeding pro se,
filed a First Amended Petition For Writ Of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”). (Dkt. No. 8.) On
December 15, 2017, the Court ordered Respondent to respond to the Petition and set
deadlines for filing, inter alia, a Motion to Dismiss and an Opposition to any Motion to
Dismiss. (Dkt. No. 9.) On January 25, 2018, Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss (the
“Motion”). (Dkt. No. 12.) Pursuant to the Court’s December 15, 2017 Order,
Petitioner’s Opposition to that Motion was due within 30 days of the service of the
Motion – that is, no later than February 24, 2018. (See Dkt. No. 9 at 3.)
Nevertheless, more than two weeks have now passed since the date on which
Petitioner’s Opposition was due, and Petitioner has not filed a response to the Motion.
Local Rule 7-12 states that a party’s failure to file a required document, such as an
opposition to a motion, “may be deemed consent to the granting [ ] of the motion.”
Further, pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, an action may be
subject to involuntary dismissal if a Petitioner “fails to prosecute or to comply with these
rules or a court order.” Thus, the Court could properly recommend dismissal of the
action for Petitioner’s failure to oppose the Motion to Dismiss and to timely comply with
the Court’s orders.
However, in the interests of justice, Petitioner is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE
on or before April 12, 2018 why the action should not be dismissed under Local Rule 712 and Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Petitioner’s response to this

CV-90 (03/15)

Civil Minutes – General

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No.
Title

CV 17-6567-MWF (KS)

Date: March 13, 2018

Timothy Jeroge Johnson v. D. Asuncion

OSC must include either: (1) a complete and detailed opposition (in a manner fully
complying with the Local Rules) to the Motion to Dismiss; or (2) a request for an
extension to file the Opposition accompanied by a sworn declaration (not to exceed 3
pages) establishing good cause for Petitioner’s failure to timely respond to the Motion to
Dismiss.
Alternatively, Petitioner may discharge this Order and dismiss this case by filing a
signed document entitled a “Notice of Voluntary Dismissal” requesting the voluntary
dismissal of the action without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.
Petitioner is cautioned that his failure to timely comply with this order will
lead to a recommendation of dismissal based on Local Rule 7-12 and Rule 41 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

:
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (03/15)

Civil Minutes – General

rhw

Page 2 of 2